81 Responses

MMT is snake oil and the less said about people selling it the better.

You have literally said there is enough money for everything we want. And that there are no consequences to printing as much money as we want.

You are deliberately downplaying the inflation it will cause and are totally ignoring the massive increases in taxes MMT would need to control it.

But of course telling your followers that there would be high risks of runaway inflation, and taxes would certainly have to increase dramatically just to try and control that inflation, let alone all the other harm having the government dominate every aspect of an economy would doesn’t sell so well.

So like a true snake oil salesman you ignore or hide the risks. And your loyal sycophants will lap it up I’m sure. It’s a shame MMT will never be tested because at least that way you and your kind could be exposed as the frauds you are.

“Don’t be told there is no money: there’s enough for everything that’s possible”

It looks to me very much like you re saying that we can have literally everything we want. You are also totally forgetting the basic economic fact:

Printing more of a fiat currency doesn’t increase economic output in any way.

We have some inflation already, and you seem unaware that high inflation rates are the best way to make the poor poorer. Inflation is a tax and it hits the lowest earners hardest. That aside, you claim MMT uses taxes to control inflation. We are also essentially at full employment – though of course MMTers will just stretch the definition to justify ever increased government spending.

So if you are going to inject huge amounts of new money into the economy, how much are taxes going to have to go up to control that inflation? Not because we are richer (which government spending won’t necessarily make us), just purely to control the massive increase in spending. I can’t find anywhere where you tell us the truth, and that taxes will have to rise and how much they will have to rise by.

Of course, that fits with your agenda. The government does more, controls more, and the people get to keep less of their wages. I also suppose you want people like yourself to be in charge.

I do trust democracy. So much so that idiocy like MMT will never happen, fortunately. I don’t want the government being the main player in our economy, not least because they don’t exactly have a good track record of efficiency or success, but also because I don’t want overly powerful politicians controlling every aspect of our economy and our lives.

Do you honestly think once politicians have started paying for things by printing money they will ever be able to stop?

Then of course you go and make a straw man argument saying that because I call MMT snake oil – which it is – I don’t want full employment or public services.

I suppose in your world only left-wing social justice warriors who believe in MMT want that, and everybody else is somehow trying to put the poor down, or other generally evil things.

Back in the real world, printing money as you do in MMT has been tried, with disastrous results every time. The best way to destroy an economy is debase the currency by printing ever more of it, and take more and more of the economy into state control.

That’s ridiculous and just about everybody knows it except for you. I won’t do my usual thing of citing evidence and links as you haven’t bothered to do so once. Although I will say that demand-side economics has been actively present since the 1930’s and the fact that you just don’t get it doesn’t alter that fact.

Everything you have posted is dogma and deliberate misunderstanding aimed at strawman targets. I don’t know why you are so fixated with strawmen. Are the real targets not satisfactory?

“The Unicorn is a mythical beast” (See James Thurber. The Unicorn and the Rose)

The NHS is real. Unlike the money markets which are fantastical confections which have been subverted to such an extent that they no longer provide the useful functions they were designed for.

Guy, you are in denial. Either you are screwing the system as it is and doing OK, or you are being gulled by the bogeyman, and doing the work of those who are screwing you (and me, which is why I resent your purblind attitude) You are suffering inflation fright where there is no inflation – you are infected with bogus folk-memory.

“MMT is snake oil and the less said about people selling it the better.” – No, the myth that money is somehow finite is the real danger. It’s not a naturally occurring commodity, it’s an accounting concept designed to make trade possible. It takes the form of government extended credit. Sterling isn’t linked to gold or pegged to any other currency, so we are not in any way restrained in the amount we choose to issue. Inflation is the only risk, but that (amongst other things) is what tax is for. If there’s any part of that with which you disagree, please clarify.

“You have literally said there is enough money for everything we want. And that there are no consequences to printing as much money as we want.” – That’s not what I read. I read that we can afford anything we choose to do or make. I can’t see how you get to the conclusion you’ve reached.

“You are deliberately downplaying the inflation it will cause and are totally ignoring the massive increases in taxes MMT would need to control it.” – Again, that’s not what I read. It clearly states there won’t be inflation until we hit full employment. Tax is used to manage that situation up until that point. I don’t see any reason why the taxation imposed to manage the economy needs to be “massive” – it just needs to be clearly legislated and complied with.

“But of course telling your followers that there would be high risks of runaway inflation, and taxes would certainly have to increase dramatically just to try and control that inflation, let alone all the other harm having the government dominate every aspect of an economy would doesn’t sell so well.” – See my previous re inflation and tax hikes, which leaves your fear that the Government will “dominate every aspect of [the] economy”. Hmm. Please tell me where on this blog – ANYWHERE – where the idea of total state control has ever been mooted? I’ve been reading and contributing to this blog for years now and I can only ever recall it supporting the concept of a mixed economy. That seems (to me) to be the right answer. Frankly, the idea of an economy that doesn’t have any aspect of it managed by Government is extremely dangerous – 2008 completely supports that idea (and NO, it wasn’t Labour spending that caused the crash). A mixed economy with the private sector doing what it does best (designing, innovating, finding solutions to modern living, encouraging healthy trade etc) complimented by a public sector doing likewise (managing vital public services, keeping the economy vibrant and live through positive regulation, stopping dangerous monopolies and so on) is (IMHO) the best way for us to proceed. Why people have such a big downer on Government, I don’t know.

“So like a true snake oil salesman you ignore or hide the risks. And your loyal sycophants will lap it up I’m sure.” – See above. In short, I think you’re very, very wrong about this.

“It’s a shame MMT will never be tested because at least that way you and your kind could be exposed as the frauds you are.” – Tested… deary, deary me. The nature of money, where it comes from and how it operates isn’t a project or really a theory. It just IS. As for the ways of managing the dangers in the economy (mainly inflation), this blog doesn’t agree in full with everything that pure MMTers believe. The debate over a Job Guarantee continues to run, for example.

I don’t believe there’s anything you’ve said which is correct, but I look forward to your reply.

Money is a social and legal construct. It is not energy nor matter. It isn’t a supernatural force. It is not a God.

As a democracy we can use our imaginary money system to coordinate our time, energy and material resources however we see fit.

So if we choose to prioritise the health and longevity of ourselves and our loved ones over other possible economic outputs no amount of wailing from yourself and people like you will stop us.

If you want to scare people into not using the full power of our money system for they’re own good, instead leaving it all for vested interests to keep enriching themselves, then I suggest you go and post someplace where they don’t understand MMT.

”It’s a shame MMT will never be tested because at least that way you and your kind could be exposed as the frauds you are”

Those who, for their own self-interest, obfuscate or deny the fundamental difference between currency issuers (the government) and users (the rest of us), and who perpetrate the myth that sovereign governments have to balance their budgets like households are the real fraudsters.

There is no such thing here. Walking in a straight line with each other most of the time is what Richard enables. And sometimes we disagree or add other things in for consideration. Nothing sycophantic about that. No ‘follower’ mentality demonstrated here – read the blogs Guy. And Richard wouldn’t put up with being worshipped either.

I have to say you sound scared and even rather panicked to me. Because of who YOU ‘follow’ obviously but also because that is your biggest fear isn’t it – that MMT will be tried and it will work.

In your case (to quote a famous politician across the pond) the only thing you and your kind (whatever you are) have to fear is fear itself.

It is time for something new. What you think you know does not work any more. It’s running on vapour only. Face the truth and help us give MMT a go.

Pilgrim Slight Return says:
” What you think you know does not work any more. ”

You are over-generous, Pilgrim.

It never did work. Not for most people, only for the ones with the chips. There was never a ‘golden age’ when this stuff worked without somebody getting screwed for somebody else’s gain.

We know how to create change, without resorting to warfare for the first time in history.

A lot of vested interests don’t like that. The Guys of this world are (hopefully unwittingly) supporting the old order who will resort to violence as their standard resolution because it’s all they understand and there is nothing unwitting in what they are doing. They are going for it, as ever, with eyes wide shut.

Ok, hypothetically , lets say the NHS is still failing after employing lots more doctors and nurses trained up and working there. The UK is at full employment, so spending any more will force up prices as there is no more unemployed staff employ.

So what can be done?

Increase tax!

Tax increases unemployment, the government are then free to take these unemployed and send them to college to study to be Doctors /Nurses. When they come out, there will be positions available for them. Ok, there might be problems with time delays between sending someone to college, and getting them employed and productive. But this is why they should have planned ahead more, and cutting Nursing bursaries is bullshit.

That’s one of the reasons for tax – to generate enough unemployed to create a pool of available people who are able to do jobs in the public interest. However, if there are unemployed people now, destitute and in poverty, this is because the Tories have taxed too much and are unwilling to make use of the unemployment they have caused. Which makes them the really nasty party.

Questions:
Increased public spending from here must lead to higher taxes for pretty much everyone as we are running at 3% inflation already..but taxes & NI are all ready high the extent to which further tax rises downtime line would be unpalatable to the point where any party adopting your proposals and who open and honest with the electorate probably wouldn’t get elected?
You mention reducing discretionary expenditure – private or state? Wont the latter prove difficult once a dependency has built up (say NHS, social care, state benefits etc)?
Obviously you could increase savings to withdraw money from private discretionary spending but MMT assumes the zero interest rates and you would have to offer rates close to inflation (through gilt offerings or national savings) to gain any traction?
Also the fear of inflation encourages spending today and forces upward pressure on wages (where Unions would fight like dogs to keep the printing going)..doesnt the inflationary process becomes self fulfilling once the Govt begins to lose control?

I am not being unduly critical and i find the discussion fascinating..it just seems there are real world consequences which make your simple assessment in your headline about the NHS completely unrealistic.

I understand an increase in Government spending will increase wages and tax receipts automatically (multiplier effect). But do you really believe that increased Government spending (along the lines of your banner post which suggests we can spend what we like on the NHS) will produces sufficient consumption and tax receipts to imply that current tax rates will remain unchanged and there will be no additional inflation?

But let’s be clear, if more tax is due that will be solely because more need is being met in the state sector

You knowing, things like people getting healthcare, and education. Or security in old age. You may think those things are unnecessary and some would be better off with more holidays or booze to forget the realities of life instead, but I would question that judgement.

so Richard it is back to the question of sensitivities..if we spend x amount then we must have an idea of how much tax will need to rise..failure to have this in the public domain risks something much worse..assume a Party is elected on this premise and there is big increase in government expenditure today creating a massive social dependency..further down the line the associated tax rises to fight inflation are deemed unpalatable and they are voted out..and voted in is a party elected to fight inflation, stop tax increases and to cut government expenditure instead..

Surely it is crucial to understand the trade off from today between increased government spending and tax rises to keep inflation stable?? Without this there is no credible argument.

If the argument is that too much newly created money (in this case government-created money) leads to inflation, then what about the money created by banks? Banks pump credit (IE money) into the economy as and when it suits them. More often than not, for the purposes of reckless financial speculation and asset acquisition & not to stimulate the production of goods & services.

If we (it is a democracy, so don’t say we can’t) stop the banks controlling the money supply & instead inject government created money into the economy to produce much needed goods & services, we could have the stable long-term growth we need. That’s not out of the back of my head, but out of the mouth of Professor Richard Werner, an expert on banking. It’s also how Germany does it & very successfully.

Banks control the money supply because they are proxies of the state; despite appearances, the state controls vastly more of the economy than in 1979. The private sector isn’t private and is the recipient of state largesse on a gigantic scale; the free market is a myth.

I understand the taxpayer took a stake in certain banks – Lloyd’s & RBS and have resold shares back to the market. But did they literally print money and gave them to banks? I was under the impression QE was purchases of gilts in the secondary market at market prices in an attempt to reduce long term interest rates?

Printing money for the Government to spend is surely completely different and provides a much greater risk of inflation?

When QE started in 2008 the fear was obviously deflation which thankfully we didn’t see, partially due to QE i presume.the issue is going forward…now in 2018 we have 3% inflation, more public expenditure echoing the sentiment of your manner post must lead to more inflation & to counter that with tax rises from current levels will be unpopular – although i have no idea of the sensitivities (i.e trade off between increased public expenditure and tax rises) – i presume you do?

As I understand it the money created by QE ended up in the banks either because it was used ti buy gilts held by the banks, or that people who were not banks, but who sold gilts had to put in somewhere, so it ended up in a bank that way.

This suggests to me that if the money had instead been created, but offered as a loan to Housing Association and Councils to build houses for social rents where the loan was for, say, 125 years, and the capital repaid at 0.8 per cent a year, with each Council and Housing association on building where they could make a business case on the basis of the money lent to them(to be repaid out of rent) then the economic effect on the Banks would have been the same, as initailly the Loans put in the Council and Association Bank Accounts, and then when spent out on buying land, in the Bank accounts of land ownwers, then when spent out on workers wages, the same and so forth. So the Banks bailed out, but with this lots of Housing built. Is this correct?

I find it weird that people seem offended by the idea of re-allocating people/resources to the NHS or social care when there is so much waste of natural talent. Of course it is so much better for people to be scraping a living in the gig economy/lining the pockets of Geoff Bezos!
We should do what needs to be done/pay for what needs to be afforded first. There will still be plenty of room for private industry and innovation.
Current policies are creating a one-way door to poverty for those that suffer illness or misfortune, and will probably mandate the same fate for their children. This is such an economic waste! Proper support would give people a chance to return to playing a productive (and satisfying) role in the economy.
Frequently the economic and political situation in this country drives me to despair – will the dark cloud ever lift?

I find it weird that people seem offended by the idea of re-allocating people/resources to the NHS or social care when there is so much waste of natural talent…..
We should do what needs to be done/pay for what needs to be afforded first. There will still be plenty of room for private industry and innovation……”

And furthermore if we have people being paid to do what needs to be done there is disposable income in the population to create the demand the private sector needs to thrive. Currently the private sector only thrives by lobbying for favours and handouts from the treasury. And bailouts when they f**kup. It works like the Tudor royal court.

The private sector, particularly retail, is dying on its feet because people who wish to buy (all have wants and many have needs) have insufficient money to do so. We’ve only survived this long because of credit card spending.

The neoliberal experiment is throttling itself. It is inevitable and always was from when it started. It is now becoming critically, terminally damaging, some would say it has been for four decades. That’s how long we’ve been creating casualties and wrecking people’s lives.

If printing money to spend on the NHS does not deliver inflation then how can it deliver more resources for healthcare without some form of slavery?
I thought the point of it was to increase salaries for nurses and doctors, bring back bursaries or similar, create new medical schools ( although the union would object on past form ) and much else. The increased wages in healthcare ( that’s the inflated costs ) will call forth more applicants, and reduce people looking for opportunities in other sectors where there won’t be the increased rewards on offer.
It’s mind boggling to say that we can have more nominal money, deliver more services in specific sectors, and then say there will be no inflation, when the inflation of incentives to enter the NHS is the very thing that will bring on what you desire.

Increased spending in the NHS would normally be looking to increase, extend and improve the range of services currently available.

You seem to be occupying a world where the NHS main priority would be to give everyone a big fat pay rise as soon as possible. And that the shortage of available staff would be so acute that they would have to embark on a massive recruitment drive to attract them away from all the super lucrative jobs that they currently occupy.

I am not familiar with that world. It sounds fascinating.

BTW, as I recall, before we had the cost-push inflation from Brexit the CPI had been below the BoE’s target rate for about 9 years. So, not a lot to worry about on the demand-pull side.

“The increased wages in healthcare ( that’s the inflated costs ) will call forth more applicants, and reduce people looking for opportunities in other sectors where there won’t be the increased rewards on offer. ”

Life isn’t zero sum. That’s not how it works. You are buying the lie of finite money which can only be spent and then it’s gone.

The healthcare sector isn’t going to be the whole economy, not ever, but it’s important and if it’s properly resourced the people employed have money to spend in the other sectors where actually there WILL “be increased rewards on offer”, because demand will increase and if the private sector entrepreneurs get of their loathsome spotties and do some entrepreneuring everybody gets to be better off.

You would have us all starve to death as per the George Osborne system

As the economy continues its death spiral of decline.

It doesn’t have to be like this. And what applies to the NHS applies across the board, to include education (pre school to PhD), and all essential utilities and services.

Where we are now is the system that involves slavery. You’ve got it all backwards. The neoliberal propagandists should give you a gold star. You’ve been an exemplary pupil. And even eaten up your crusts.

Also, surely some wage inflation is absolutely what is needed. One of the things that is supporting private employers in reducing their workers living standards is the lack of appropriate competition from the public sector at improving pay rates.

I think you know that I write the following with the best and most sincere of intentions but
I have genuine reservations about the simplicity of this bit:

“we can have as much if that (money) as we want without inflation until we get to full-employment”

That should be true but it isn’t, at least not entirely, because it assumes a broadly competitive economy which we don’t currently have.

With monetary or fiscal stimulus comes increased consumer demand and for the quoted statement to be true, the potential price increases that come with increased demand would be competed away in a free market up until the point that capacity constraints, such as full-employment, were reached.

That idea is not unusual. It also exists in orthodox economics – which is not in itself a criticism. In our current world, markets, many of them, are not especially free or competitive. Market power – monopoly and oligopoly power – is abundant.

So when demand increases in any sustained way, with any form of stimulus, there is near certainty that a significant proportion of that increase could be captured as rents in the form of uncompetitive price rises.

That is what rent-seekers (monopolistic rent-seekers) do and in this blog much has been said about the rise of rent-seeking in the neoliberal era.

I think that it is agreed that corporate oligopoly power has increased nationally and globally since the time that demand-side economics was most ascendant in the post-war Keynesian era. For some time I have been concerned that writers such as yourself and some of the MMT authors have overlooked the significance of market power in their basic assumptions.

I would suggest that any revival of demand-side economics that is not accompanied by strong and effective competition policy is bound to be disappointed to some degree or another. The issue of market power, with regard to inflation, is foreseeable and should be addressed.

I would suggest that the ascendancy and profitability of, among others, Apple, Microsoft, Google shows how market power, combined with lack of regulation shows how corporate rent-seeking succeeds. And they don’t necessarily produce the “best” products to “justify” their monopoly power.

I see MMT not only as a powerful thing but also as very vulnerable – especially to established countervailing, competing ideas and networks of self-interest.

MMT will need to have a ‘fighter escort’ of other polices and close monitoring by Government of markets and the City. This is how ‘the many’ (whom MMT is meant to help) will be protected from ‘the few’.

But it is not just your problem Richard. All those at the fore front of promoting MMT must think this through.

Timing is a factor and less of a concern in the case of a one-off stimulus where, in urgent cases, a bit of additional inflation may even be desired (in preference to deflation).

There is a case to be said that rent-seeking or surplus capture (to use micro-talk) could take a while as the big oligopolies are slower to adjust due to the scale of their operations. In which case – capture follows stimulus with a time-lag.

But that’s not the main point I am making. The monopolists’ demand curve is steep and they are exponentially cheaper when demand is weak (for want of a better sentence). From the late 70’s onwards monetarist neoliberalism has (long-story-short) controlled inflation in Philips Curve style by trading unemployment off against inflation. Permanent unemployment has kept prices low.

A return to full-employment through sustained stimulus, or demand management, at a macro level will probably require something of a revolution in competition policy or price regulation or both.

…..and much of what they produce is not due to the unique innovative abilities of private enterprise but are thanks to what Mazzucato describes as “The Entrepreneurial State” (in the book of the same name).

Marco Fante says re:
“we can have as much if that (money) as we want without inflation until we get to full-employment”

That should be true but it isn’t, at least not entirely, because it assumes a broadly competitive economy which we don’t currently have.The issue of market power, with regard to inflation, is foreseeable and should be addressed.”

I think what you are saying Marco is that a change in economic philosophy that engages with MMT does not have the luxury of starting with a clean slate.

When we turn the ship round there will be some considerable turbulence – a lot of thrashing of white water (well probably brown actually !) and the ship ain’t going to turn on a sixpence.

So yes I think you raise important points about the necessary dismantling and reforming of some of the present malfunctions in the economy.

Perhaps along with my Orwell quote if the day yesterday, “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men”.

Perhaps the time has come when we stop arguing with the mentally sclerotic about what is screamingly obvious to anyone with half an eye, and begin to consider how we make a transition to a sensible economic system without causing mayhem in the short term as ‘free’ market fundamentalists throw a queenie fit.

Much of what you say is pertinent here, Marco. Where do you put the first wedge, bulwark or stick of dynamite could have a profound influence on which way the edifice comes down. Sure as hell it ain’t going to land in it’s own footprint. The only way to do that (apparently) is to crash airliners into it as demonstrated by the twin towers demolition. Yeah Right.

I am all for a solution to reduce inequality and to move away from austerity..but there needs to be a rational well thought out argument and importantly answers. If i (a moderate economics graduate from 20yrs ago) can throw up red flags and, post discussion, remain concerned with where the MMT / state intervention argument is going then it won’t get any meaningful traction when brought into the wider domain. Richard i am astonished by your energy levels and ability to communicate effectively on so many issues so please don’t feel the need to add further to the earlier questions i raised but i hope you take them on board as much more knowledgable commentators will pull the theory / doctrine / policy initiatives apart.

I would add:

1) The international aspect. Don’t you think a Party elected on an open understanding that the supply of pounds is open ended, completely under control of the state and this power is going to be put to use for the social good will feed inflationary expectations and this will cause a fall in sterling? Add to this the natural rate of interest is zero under MMT so that will surely weaken sterling further? We are obviously dependent upon overseas producers for many things where we cant produce ourselves – oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, vehicles, computing, certain foodstuffs etc..it is a long list so we will import inflation quickly before any excess demand argument is even accounted for.

2) The history of printing money and hyper inflation. I read an article recently that stated that hyperinflation occurred 56 times in the last century with nations experimenting with fiat currencies backed by the credit of the Government. I know you have answered Venezuela issue on this board but can there be any similarities with any of the other examples and the UK? To me the real issue who can you trust to have such power, particularly if all the potential problems (some highlighted on this board) are not completely understood and catered for.

I dont mean to sound negative but my views will sound tame compared to the barrage of fear that will be thrown towards the electorate if this ever become party policy.

1) Why should the pound fall if the economy is going to grow? Aren’t you assuming all state spending is a burden on growth? Won’t growth give rise to innovation, an increase in productivity and a gain for sterling?

2) Did £435 billion of QE produce hyper inflation? Has QE resulted in hyper inflation around the world? Why should MMT then?

The 56 examples of hyperinflation you mention were, I believe, originally collated in a research doc commissioned by The Cato Institute (funded by the Koch Bothers). Not that I dispute the integrity of the analysis conducted by the authors, Steve H. Hanke and Nicholas Krus, but just look at the list of countries – https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/workingpaper-8.pdf (pp. 13/14). As they state: “Hyperinflation is an economic malady that arises under extreme conditions: war, political mismanagement, and the transition from a command to market-based economy.” One can draw one’s own conclusions but I’m confident that none of the governments involved were aware of the principles that underpin MMT. And in most cases I doubt they were even free to implement democratic and liberating economic programmes.

‘Hyperinflation’ is invariably trotted out by Neo-libs as the likely outcome of applied MMT. Conversationally it’s the economic equivalent of ‘Godwin’s Law’.

On a yet more frivolous note, I’m reminded of the alleged response from William Temple (the unusually socially progressive Archbishop of Canterbury) to the question “Does Christianity work?” He replied: “I don’t know, it’s never been tried.” 🙂

Thanks, I can see that makes it difficult. My worry is that without a historical context of some kind then MMT remains “just a theory” and a counter-intuitive one at that. On the other hand the neoliberal dogma of government getting in the way, private enterprise taking us ever onwards and upwards, innovating, efficient, running public services so much leaner and fitter, wealth trickling down, balancing the government books like a sensible household and not maxing out on debt – all these totems of neoliberalism seem so credible and intuitive.

And of course the inexorable law of unintended consequences (of which there have been numerous examples lately) will likely afflict MMT in due course.

G Hewitt says:
” the neoliberal dogma of government getting in the way, private enterprise taking us ever onwards and upwards, innovating, efficient, running public services so much leaner and fitter, wealth trickling down, balancing the government books like a sensible household and not maxing out on debt – all these totems of neoliberalism seem so credible and intuitive.”

Except, you would think, to anyone who had lived through the last four decades of it and noticed no discernible improvement and their society disintegrating around their ears.

Does history teach us anything? For example, has anyone done an analysis of Roosevelt’s (various enactments) of his New Deal from an MMT perspective?

History teaches us a great deal and the MMT academics have been been eager pupils. For most intents and purposes, the US has been off the gold standard since 1933. The New Deal is pretty much the inspiration for the MMT program, and a very successful large scale test of the ideas. MMT academics have written a good amount here and there on it. The literature of the time is largely forgotten but very valuable, for there really aren’t any new issues and problems that weren’t aired back then. MMT academics just don’t have the manpower to do more than scratch the surface. But there still really isn’t any good, reliable, full scale economic history of the Great Depression & the New Deal. Almost always it is seen through the optics of the bad economics that Keynes et al then and now MMT have clearly refuted. Grosso modo, MMT = Keynes = the economics behind the New Deal & WWII (especially), but even also the post war era before the rise of neoliberalism in the 70s & 80s. That rise followed and was aided by the return of economic concepts refuted in the 30s and 40s, which were then dressed up in fake math in the 60s & 70s to conceal their decrepitude of the thinking.

QE started in 2008 – the threat was deflation, recession, depression which didn’t materialise. Central banks are not planning that kind of injection now but if they did it might well be inflationary.

A significant proportion of Govt expenditure will not grow the economy nor would I expect it to..social care, improved benefits are necessary for a caring society but they will not match existing productivity. The role of Govt throws up (rightly or wrongly) more beaucracy not necessarily productivity gains.

With the currency there needs to be demand for sterling vrs other exchange rates. If there is an open ended supply of sterling where is international demand going to come from? I think it is more likely capital flows the other way. Surely you have to account for the likelihood we import inflation?

Also the relatively recent history of fiat currencies printing and experiencing hyper inflation needs to be addressed. Adversaries will just state that what you are advocating is not new and will point to the evidence of the 56 examples of hyper inflation that are out there and what this means in everyday life.

John D – you might be right and non of the countries may not bear any relation to the UK now (although we would always be potentially exposed to political mismanagement) but there has to be something substantive to counter the critical response and general cynicism that will meet Richard’s argument. Otherwise it will look like an economic experiment that has tried before and ended in carnage.

Apologies for wasting your time..but should your ideas gain traction and enter the public domain/ form part of a manifesto then you won’t be able to gloss over questions like you have here and expect the world to accept what you say just because you say it.
Anyway we move on.